Empowering the few, not the many

By Andrew Lewin

On a superficial level, you can see why the coalition’s localism agenda might appeal to an impartial observer.

The political rhetoric is easy; ‘this government wants to give power back to the people’ and ‘the coalition wants to end top-down decision making’. Such sentiments are powerful because they reinforce a perception that Labour didn’t do enough to decentralise power while in office. I don’t intend to use this article to evaluate Labour’s record, but it is important to establish that when debating localism we start from a position where many ordinary voters will (at first) be receptive to Eric Pickles and Co.

The question for Labour is how we craft a critique of this Tory-led government, while still demonstrating that we are serious about devolving power and empowering people. To date, the party has primarily attacked Pickles for trumpeting his localist credentials to distract from the withering cuts DCLG is facing. It is absolutely right for Labour to draw attention to these cuts, especially when there is compelling evidence that some of our poorest communities will be hardest hit. That said, I think we must look more closely at what this version of localism means in policy terms and show why the proposed approach is so fundamentally flawed.

I am convinced that the true impact of the coalition’s plans will be to empower a vocal minority at the expense of the people most reliant on local public services. To illustrate the point, let’s cast an eye over three distinct coalition policies, all of which have been championed as part of strategy to give ‘power back to people’.

The first is the free schools initiative, the centrepiece of Michael Gove’s education reforms. As we know, the vision is for ‘ordinary people’ to be allowed to set-up and manage their own schools free of LEA control. The reality is surely that incredibly few parents have the time, inclination or experience to set-up a school. The beneficiaries of these new powers will be a small number of professional bodies keen to enter the education system, not busy parents who simply want a good local school.

Second is the New Homes Bonus, the new system for incentivising local house building. To much fanfare, the coalition scrapped all regional house building targets (previously the Regional Spatial Strategies) and insisted that local people would now be free to decide what was built in their communities. A raft of housing experts have attacked this policy as reckless, fearing that under intense pressure from the NIMBY lobby, dozens of communities will now scrap vital construction projects. Again the beneficiary of these new powers will be a minority of organised pressure groups, not the significant numbers who stand to benefit from new housing projects.

Perhaps the best illustration of a reform to empower the few and not the many is the commitment to introducing referenda on raising council tax. It is a depressing reality that in non- general election years, turnout at local elections is always well below 50%. Naturally, you would imagine turnout would be significantly lower again if you were simply posing a question on tax. Not only would we have council tax rates being determined on very small turnouts, we would surely see campaigns being dominated by organised groups determined to keep their taxes down. The result would be regular victories for low tax campaigners and little prospect of local investment.

I think the picture is clear, Localism according to Eric Pickles will mean power for a vocal minority at the expense of people most reliant on public services. It’s an agenda Labour should oppose and challenge as we enter 2011.